PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
by
Natalie A. McCracken
Bachelor of Science, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1993 Master of Education, California University of Pennsylvania, 2004
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the School of Education in fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
University of Pittsburgh 2017
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
This dissertation was presented
by
Natalie A. McCracken
It was defended on March 22, 2017 and approved by
Dr. Diane Kirk, Clinical Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies Dr. Jill Perry, Research Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies
Dr. Jennifer Russell, Assistant Professor, Learning Sciences and Policy
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Cynthia Tananis, Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies
Copyright © by Natalie A. McCracken 2017
This case study research sought to understand the professional development perceptions and experiences of the principals from the researcher’s school district. The document explains the federal and state legislation regarding professional development and the variety of frameworks for evaluating the effectiveness of professional development experiences. Specifically, the following research questions were investigated in the study: What do principals identify as important characteristics of professional learning? How do principals describe the relationship between important characteristics of professional learning and their experience in a district-provided professional development program? And how do principals view the impact of their professional development experiences on their professional knowledge, attitudes, and practice? Administrators from the school district were interviewed about their perceptions of and experiences with professional learning. The findings from the study informed the researcher about the professional development perceptions and experiences of the principals and administrators in the district. The findings may also potentially inform central office administrators and those responsible for providing professional development for school principals and may further add to the literature on the topic.
PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Natalie A. McCracken, Ed.D.
University of Pittsburgh, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ... XII
1.0 INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ... 2
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 3
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ... 4
1.3.1 Personal Significance ... 4
1.3.2 Significance to Scholarship and Practice... 5
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS ... 7
2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 10
2.1 THE INFLUENCE OF FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EDUCATORS SINCE 1965 ... 12
2.1.1 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ... 12
2.1.2 A Nation at Risk ... 13
2.1.3 Goals 2000 Educate America Act ... 14
2.1.4 Improving America’s Schools Act 1994... 15
2.1.5 Pennsylvania Act 48 of 1999 ... 16
2.1.6 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ... 17
2.1.7 Pennsylvania Act 45 of 2007 ... 18
2.1.8 A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Act ... 21
2.1.9 Conclusion ... 22
2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS FOR UNDERSTANDING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ... 22
2.2.1 Evolution of Conceptual Frameworks ... 23
2.2.2 Desimone Framework ... 26
2.3 A REVIEW OF DESIMONE’S CORE FEATURES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ... 28
2.3.1 Core Feature One – Content Focus ... 28
2.3.2 Core Feature Two – Active Learning ... 30
2.3.3 Core Feature Three – Coherence ... 32
2.3.4 Core Feature Four – Duration ... 34
2.3.5 Core Feature Five – Collective Participation ... 35
2.3.5.1 Professional Learning Communities ... 36
2.3.5.2 Mentorships ... 37
2.3.5.3 Coaching ... 38
2.3.5.4 Cohort Groups... 39
2.3.6 Core Feature – Summary ... 39
2.4 IMPLICATIONS OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 40
3.0 METHODS ... 41
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF TOPIC AND STUDY ... 41
3.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ... 42
3.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 44
3.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK... 44
3.5 PILOT STUDY ... 47
3.6 RESEARCH METHODS ... 50
3.7 RESEARCH SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS ... 51
3.8 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ... 53
3.9 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY ... 59
3.10 CONCLUSION ... 62
4.0 CORE-FEATURE: CONTENT ... 63
4.1 IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING 64 4.2 CONTENT FINDINGS ... 65
4.3 CONTENT DISCUSSION ... 71
4.4 CONTENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 74
5.0 CORE FEATURE: ACTIVE LEARNING ... 77
5.1 ACTIVE LEARNING FINDINGS ... 77
5.2 ACTIVE LEARNING DISCUSSION ... 85
5.3 ACTIVE LEARNING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 87
6.0 CORE FEATURE: COLLECTIVE PARTICIPATION ... 90
6.1 COLLECTIVE PARTICIPATION FINDINGS ... 90
6.1.1 Cohorts – Non-District ... 91
6.1.2 Cohorts – District Principals ... 92
6.1.3 Cohorts – District Staff ... 94
6.1.4 Professional Learning Communities ... 97
6.1.5 Challenges of Collective Participation ... 99
6.2 COLECTIVE PARTICIPATION DISCUSSION ... 101
6.3 COLLECTIVE PARTICIPATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 105
7.0 CORE FEATURE: DURATION ... 108
7.1 DURATION FINDINGS ... 108
7.2 DURATION DISCUSSION ... 113
7.3 DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 114
8.0 CORE FEATURE: COHERENCE ... 116
8.1 COHERENCE FINDINGS ... 116
8.2 COHERENCE DISCUSSION ... 120
8.3 COHERENCE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 122
9.0 BEYOND THE CORE FEATURES ... 125
9.1 BEYOND THE CORE FEATURES FINDINGS: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRESENTER ... 125
9.2 BEYOND THE CORE FEATURES FINDINGS: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MATERIALS ... 129
9.3 BEYOND THE CORE FEATURES DISCUSSION ... 131
9.4 BEYOND THE CORE FEATURES CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 132
10.0 CORE CONCEPTUAL MODEL – CAUSAL CHAIN ... 134
10.1 CAUSAL CHAIN FINDINGS ... 136
10.2 CAUSAL CHAIN DISCUSSION ... 142
10.3 CAUSAL CHAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 143 11.0 PERSONAL REFLECTION ... 145 APPENDIX A ... 154 APPENDIX B ... 156 APPENDIX C ....... 158 ix APPENDIX D........... 160 REFERENCES ... 162
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Principal Induction Program ... 19
Table 2. Frameworks for the Evaluation of Professional Development ... 25
Table 3. Desimone’s Core Features of Professional Development ... 45
Table 4. Reflection Questions for Analyzing Categories ... 57
Table 5. Data Collection and Analysis ... 58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Desimone’s Core Conceptual Framework... 135
PREFACE
Writing a dissertation has been a challenging and seemingly never-ending experience yet one that has also been incredibly rewarding. As I near the end of this phase of my educational journey, I am thankful to have the opportunity to recognize all of the family, friends, colleagues, and mentors who have supported me throughout the process.
To the most important people in my life, Lew, Gage, and Ansley, I am grateful each and every day for you. I never laugh harder or feel more love and joy than when we are together. I’m sure you don’t remember a time when I was not attending class, working on school assignments, or talking about my dissertation. Throughout the process you have never complained, even when it meant I was not available or missed an event of yours. That alone helped me to persist when it often seemed easier to quit. I hope I have modeled the importance of setting a goal and persevering through its completion. I promise to always support and encourage each of you in your pursuits as unselfishly as you have supported me.
I am also thankful to not only have a supportive family but to also be an administrator in a school district where professional learning and growth is valued. Throughout this process, I have received ongoing support and encouragement from the Board of Education, Administration, Faculty, and Staff of the Norwin School District. To Dr. Kerr, you have served as a role model and mentor and have continually reminded me that I am capable of passing the perseverance test of the dissertation. To the principals and administrators who participated in the study, I cannot
thank you enough for your willingness to openly and honestly share your thoughts about and experiences with professional development. By doing so, you have contributed to my professional growth and I hope to be able to use this information to improve the teaching and learning in our District. You are examples of what makes Norwin such a special place, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to work and learn with you.
To the strong, intelligent, dedicated school leaders I have been blessed to have as mentors and friends along my professional journey, Janet, Mary Anne, Tracy, and Rose, I am so appreciative of your example and ongoing encouragement to pursue my doctoral degree. To Connie, my colleague and friend, you have provided timely and relevant advice and feedback and have never let me get away with a misplaced which or that. And to Beverly, my right, and sometimes left, hand, you have been interested in and supportive of this process every step of the way. I am grateful to have you as a colleague and friend, and I thank you for always celebrating my success.
To my dissertation adviser, Dr. Cindy Tananis, and my committee members, Dr. Diane Kirk, Dr. Jill Perry, and Dr. Jennifer Russell, I am so appreciative of the time you have spent helping me to complete a case study of professional development. Your knowledge and input has been invaluable in framing and completing my study. Thank you for providing guidance to help me navigate the unfamiliar world of higher education and the dissertation.
Writing a dissertation has helped me grow as both a student and as a practitioner. I am blessed by the love and support I have received from family, friends, colleagues, and mentors throughout this process. You all have helped to make this experience manageable, valuable, and enjoyable.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Federal educational legislation beginning with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 has recognized the importance of professional learning by including the expectation of professional development for educators. As noted in ESEA, recommendations were included to, “provide for the training of State and local educational personnel” (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965, p. 17). Prior to ESEA, professional development was not documented as a strategy for school improvement. Over the course of the fifty years since the initial passage of ESEA, subsequent federal and state legislative resolutions, including several reauthorizations of ESEA, have acknowledged its importance by further defining and significantly expanding requirements for professional development.
Following changing federal legislation, many states including Pennsylvania expanded their own requirements regarding professional development for teachers and school administrators. While all Pennsylvania educators were responsible for earning professional learning credit hours through Act 48 of 1999, school administrators became additionally responsible for professional development requirements through Pennsylvania Act 45 of 2007. Within Act 45 of 2007 are several requirements applicable to public and private school leaders in Pennsylvania, including the provision of continuing professional education for school or system leaders specifically focused on the Pennsylvania school leadership standards. The Act established a tiered certification process for principals, vice principals, and assistant principals,
and it supplements earlier legislation requiring school leaders to earn professional development credit hours through Act 48 credit hours (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.-b). Given the evolving legislation outlining requirements for professional development for school leaders, it is a topic worthy of greater exploration through research. As explained in subsequent sections, the purpose of this study is to understand professional development for principals from the perspective of the participants.
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Participation in effective professional development is necessary for the growth of high quality instructional leaders who will positively impact teaching and learning (Council of Chief State of School Officers, 2008). As principals strive to meet the changing demands of their district and state and federal government, professional learning will prepare and support both individuals and school systems. There are a host of options available to meet the professional development requirements and needs of principals. One of the primary responsibilities of central office administrators is to plan and provide professional development for the building administrators in the District. In order to plan and provide effective professional learning experiences for principals, it is valuable to understand how they experience professional development. Recent legislative updates about professional development recognize that educators are integral to the determination of what professional development is relevant and necessary, based on local student needs and an obligation to demonstrate continuous growth and improvement (Learning Forward, n.d.).
This study seeks to understand professional development from the perspective of school principal participants. Thus, the study considers the participants’ perceptions and experiences in professional learning and also considers the perspective of the central office administrators responsible for facilitating the program. The findings may potentially inform the researcher, the school district, and other school administrators responsible for planning and providing professional development for all principals.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of this research study is to understand the perceptions and experiences of one school district’s principals related to their professional learning. Specifically, the following research questions frame the study:
Q1. What do principals identify as important characteristics of professional learning? Q2. How do principals describe the relationship between important characteristics of professional learning and their professional development experiences?
Q3. How do principals view the impact of their professional development experiences on their professional knowledge, attitudes, and practice?
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The research study is significant to the researcher based on the researcher’s background and experience in education, particularly with professional learning. In addition, given the ever-changing requirements and expectations for professional development for educators, the study is relevant to the field of education and educational practice.
1.3.1 Personal Significance
I cannot remember a time when I have not been a student. My recollection of time and events is often correlated directly to the professional position which I hold or to the degree or certification which I pursue. Throughout my educational experience, I have served as a teacher, mathematics specialist, and elementary school principal. I currently serve as an Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education. I have similarly earned degrees and certifications including a Bachelor of Science in Education with a Mathematics Concentration, Master of Science in Education, K-12 Principal Certification, and a Superintendent Letter of Eligibility. With each new position and/or educational milestone, I have experienced a similar process – one in which a comprehensive combination of coursework and experiences prepare me for a new position. Upon commencing the new position, almost immediately I would recognize that, while coursework prepared me to qualify for the new position, there was still much to learn and experience in order to be successful in the role. I have relied on ongoing professional learning and experiences, both required and optional, to help me be fully competent as an educator.
Throughout my professional learning, I have experienced a wide variety of professional development experiences. Some of the experiences have been enormously helpful and some
have been what I considered less than applicable. In my current position as the Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Education, I am responsible not only for my own professional learning, but for guiding and providing much of the professional learning for the district principals. Given the high expectations and limited opportunities for professional learning, it is important for me to identify and understand how principals experience professional learning so I can provide a high quality, relevant learning experience. As has been my experience, by continuing my own professional learning through the process of researching this topic, I may come to know more that will help me to be successful in my current position. Through this study, I want to understand professional learning from the perspective of the participants in the district in which I am employed. I will potentially use the information in several ways: to plan future professional development for principals in my district, to inform other central office administrators responsible for planning and providing professional development for principals, and to contribute to the body of literature on professional development for principals.
1.3.2 Significance to Scholarship and Practice
In the current educational environment of standards and accountability, success as a building principal is often defined by the success of the building’s students and teachers, based on student growth and achievement data. School leadership impacts student achievement more than any other single factor, second only to the effect of the classroom teacher (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2013). Professional development is important in supporting the acquisition of skills and competencies which will enable a principal to improve student achievement.
In a subsequent chapter, an historical perspective of professional development as outlined through evolving federal and state guidelines will be presented. Professional learning and professional development recommendations specific to adult educators will be investigated. Frameworks which guide an understanding of the components, processes, and outcomes of professional development will be considered in order to identify the core features of professional learning. Based on the understandings gleaned from reviewing relevant literature and by conducting a pilot study, the researcher plans to investigate the professional development experiences of one district’s principals. A comprehensive study of the participants will yield information to more fully understand the perceptions and experiences of principals with professional learning.
Soon after the inception of Act 45 of 2007, a researcher studied the professional development needs of southwestern Pennsylvania secondary principals. The study generated findings relevant to the participants’ experiences and preferences in professional learning situations. Principals expressed a desire to participate in collaborative professional learning experiences and described several examples which they felt were effective (Bischel, 2008). Based on the study, the researcher suggested, “A district level administrator with principal input would be responsible for determining different professional development options and opportunities for principals. These opportunities would align with and support the same goals as the professional development for teachers” (Bischel, 2008, p. 127). The study also suggested areas of future exploration including the need to consider a principal’s perception of professional development needs and experiences in order to plan relevant learning experiences for them and examples of principal professional development is occurring within school districts (Bischel, 2008). The findings from the study of the professional development experiences of one district’s
principals may begin to address the suggestions identified in previous professional development literature such as the study referenced above.
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS
In the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, professional development was referenced as training for education personnel (ESEA, 1965). The concept of professional development has evolved and has been more specifically defined within each subsequent iteration of education legislation. As one representative example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 defines the term “professional development” as: a continuous process; aligned to state and local standards and goals; focused on student and educator learning needs as identified through district data; including coherent curriculum and evidence-based instruction; and evaluated based on its impact on student learning (NCLB, 2002). Currently, posted on the United States Department of Education website [Section 9101 (34)] is a 551-word definition of professional development, outlining expectations for all aspects of professional development for educators and schools. The focus on professional learning has led to more clearly defined definitions of professional development for educators.
A common understanding of professional development and other terms related to professional learning are necessary for a research study on professional development of principals. The following terms and operational definitions will be used throughout this research study:
Professional Development – Professional development, also referred to as professional learning, is defined as a comprehensive process of acquiring skills and knowledge for the purpose of impacting the effectiveness of teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009).
Central Office Administrator – A central office administrator (Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent) is one who has responsibility for district tasks including the provision of professional development for building administrators, faculty, and staff.
Building Administrator – A building administrator is either a principal or assistant principal in one or more of the district’s schools.
Core Features of Professional Development – The five core features of professional development are identified as content, focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. The presence of the core features of professional development, rather than the structure or type of professional learning activities, is related to participant learning (Desimone, 2009).
Content Focus – Content focus is the subject matter content of professional development including relevant knowledge, skills, and practices.
Active Learning – Active learning includes participant engagement in professional development activities, rather than a passive transmission of information.
Coherence – Coherence refers to the level of consistency between the professional development and the participant and/or relevant federal, state, and local initiatives.
Duration – The duration of professional development includes the length of time and amount (number of hours) of professional development learning.
Collective Participation – The interaction between and among participants throughout professional development, rather than learning which occurs in isolation, is referred to as collective participation.
2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Through a review of literature, several areas were investigated in order to inform a research study on professional development experienced by principals. Professional development, originally included as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, has been included in each reauthorization of federal education legislation including most recently the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015. In ESSA, professional development was promoted through this statement: “Educator learning is an integral local strategy for building educator capacity to help students succeed with high academic standards” (Learning Forward, n.d.). The evolving recommendations for professional learning support the relevance of investigating the effectiveness of professional development for educators, and specifically for principals.
Recent legislation has reinforced the importance of providing educators opportunities to learn and improve their practice in order to improve student achievement. Professional development for educators provides the content and opportunity necessary for professional learning. As professional learning is learning specific to adult educators, it is important to consider research that has made recommendations for adult learning practices. In addition to the exploration of principles of adult learning, learning strategies specific to educators will be explored.
Several conceptual frameworks have been used to investigate professional development. In order to study professional development, it is necessary to understand frameworks which have been used for this purpose. A summary of relevant conceptual frameworks will be provided along with an in-depth discussion of one framework which will be used to frame this research study of a professional learning and a professional development program experienced in one school district.
The identified conceptual framework recommends five core features necessary in professional development. Literature includes an abundance of recommendations for the characteristics or features of effective professional development for educators. Citing correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental studies, Desimone (2009) contends there are specific features of professional development which merit evaluation. The core features include content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, collective participation. She further contends, “Given the number, quality, and diversity of studies that provide support for the features, I conclude we have reached a consensus that these core features play an important role in determining the effectiveness of professional development,” (p. 183). Desimone’s core features are based on studies of teacher professional development. While there have been several studies that have investigated principal professional learning and development programs, there has been no consensus on the important features for principals. The literature provides insight into the expectations and effectiveness of professional learning for all educators, including teachers and principals. Thus, the ideas from Desimone’s (2009) conceptual framework will be used as the foundation for a study of principal professional development.
2.1 THE INFLUENCE OF FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EDUCATORS SINCE 1965
Federal and state legislation has acknowledged the importance of professional learning by including the requirements for the professional development for educators. As noted in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, recommendations were included to, “Provide for the training of State and local educational personnel” (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965, p. 17). This was the first documented recommendation for the provision of professional development as a strategy for school improvement. Over the course of the fifty years since the initial passage of ESEA, several subsequent federal and state legislative decisions have recognized the significance of professional learning by further defining and significantly expanding requirements for professional development for educators.
The evolution of professional development evolution has created additional responsibility for local districts to implement the government mandates by providing access to appropriate professional development and for monitoring both the completion and effectiveness of experiences. An historical perspective of professional development is necessary to fully understand the significant changes which have impacted professional development practices in education.
2.1.1 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (P. L. 89-10) is recognized as the most expansive federal education bill ever enacted (Michelman, 2012; Thomas & Brady, 2005). The goal of ESEA was to strengthen and improve education in the Nation’s elementary and
secondary schools. This legislation was significant as it marked the first federal attempt to provide direction and support to state and local education agencies to improve teacher and school leader performance. Identifying the need for training for state and local educational personnel, along with opportunities for teacher improvement courses, the legislation marked the beginning of an ongoing process to improve our schools by providing training and education to the teachers and principals who lead them. Despite substantial increases in federal education funding, no significant changes or improvements were made to strengthen ESEA for several years following its inception. It was not until nearly 20 years later during President Ronald Reagan’s administration that federal support of education was reformed.
2.1.2 A Nation at Risk
With support from President Ronald Reagan, Secretary of Education Terrell. H. Bell, created the National Commission on Excellence in Education to examine and report on the condition of education in the United States in A Nation at Risk (1983). The Commission made several overarching recommendations to improve teaching and learning. One important recommendation included Recommendation E, Leadership and Fiscal Support, which included recommendations for educators and elected officials to provide leadership and for citizens to provide fiscal support and stability necessary for reform (A Nation at Risk, 1983).
Recommendation E included recommendations about the role of professional development for school leaders to enable them to carry out the proposed reforms successfully. The Commission cited necessary leadership skills believed to be connected to improved teaching and learning. These included interpersonal and community relationships, goal-setting,
management, and supervision. Principals and superintendents were tasked with leading the reform efforts, while school boards were challenged to provide to leaders the professional development and support that would enable them to be effective (A Nation at Risk, 1983)
2.1.3 Goals 2000 Educate America Act
Following the concerns raised in A Nation at Risk came an education plan to prepare schools for the 21st Century under President Clinton’s leadership. Goals 2000 outlined the eight National Education Goals including one goal focused specifically on professional development:
By the year 2000, the Nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century (Earley, 1994).
There were four objectives included as part of Goal 4, Teacher Education and Professional Development. As presented in Earley (1994), the objectives of the goal included:
(i) access for teachers to pre-service education and professional development focused on meeting the diverse educational, social, and health-related needs of students;
(ii) opportunities for professional learning about rigorous subject matter, instructional strategies, assessment, and technology;
(iii) strategies to attract and retain educators, and supports for the professional growth of teachers, administrators, and other educators; and
(iv) partnerships “among local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, parents, and local labor, business and professional associations to provide and support programs for the professional development of educators” (p. 4).
Goals 2000 was described as comprehensive legislation with strong bi-partisan support that would effectively transform the United States from “a nation at risk to a nation on the move’ (Earley, 1994, p. 2).
2.1.4 Improving America’s Schools Act 1994
Almost concurrently with Goals 2000 and 30 years after the initial ESEA of 1965, the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act - also referred to as the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) - was enacted. The Act was based on four key principles of comprehensive education reform: high academic standards for students, training for educators, flexibility of efforts and accountability for results, and quality parent-school-community partnerships. Several professional development recommendations for teachers, principals, and other school staff were included in the reauthorization, including recommendations for professional development that is ongoing, rigorous, and aligned to state standards, with the intention that the professional learning is assimilated into daily teaching and learning (Riley, 1995). A new program, the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, now known as Title II, was introduced as a vehicle through which all school personnel would have access to high-quality professional development. Specifically, the program recommended that educators have input in determining ideal professional development opportunities (United States Department of Education, n.d.-c). Further, the program suggested that educators and educational agencies would have the capability to create institutes, networks, or clearinghouses to support professional learning (Riley, 1995). A new Title I program would supplement Title II by framing strategies for effective professional development. The intention of IASA was to
promote a systematic approach to improving school achievement that would replace previous isolated, fragmented efforts (Riley, 1995).
With each subsequent legislative decision, the requirements for professional development were more specifically and clearly defined. Increased emphasis on and expectations for professional learning became progressively evident. After nearly 30 years of federal influence on the professional expectations for educators, the first legislation of its kind in the state of Pennsylvania was enacted.
2.1.5 Pennsylvania Act 48 of 1999
Beginning July 1, 2000, continuing education requirements for Pennsylvania educators were defined through Act 48. Act 48 required all educators to complete 180 hours of professional development during every five year period to maintain an active teaching certificate. This legislation impacted all Pennsylvania educators, considered the unique needs of educators across all phases of a professional career, and was based on the principles of adult learning. Suggested content of effective professional development was defined as the knowledge and skills to improve teaching, learning, decision-making, and collaboration (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.-a).
A separate set of recommended goals was listed, specifically for those educators serving in or seeking leadership roles at the school or district level. The four goals included ideas which would later become part of the Pennsylvania Core Leadership Standards. Leadership learning was defined as learning which should help educators to think and plan strategically, ensuring alignment of curriculum and instruction to Pennsylvania’s academic standards. It should enable
leaders to effectively access and use student data effectively, create a culture of teaching and learning, and manage resources (Pennsylvania School Leadership Evaluation Tool, 2010). Throughout the last decades of the 20th century, federal and state reform efforts in education were occurring with increasing regularity. With the transition to the 21st Century came The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described as “arguably the most far reaching education policy initiative in the United States over the last four decades,” (Dee & Jacob, 2010).
2.1.6 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Public Law 107-110, also commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), proposed, “To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2002). This simple statement represented significant reformation of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Dee & Jacob, 2010).
NCLB presented specific recommendations for professional development activities and programs for teachers, principals, and when appropriate, paraprofessionals. Instructional topics included knowledge of core academic subjects, effective instructional strategies, state academic standards, and state assessments (NCLB, 2002). Additionally, within NCLB (2002), professional development training was recommended in areas including behavior management and modification, and parent communication and relations. Included were expectations for training to meet the needs of students with disabilities, students with special learning needs (including those identified as gifted and talented), and students with limited English proficiency. Evident was an emphasis on innovative professional development programs to train teachers and
principals to utilize technology effectively to improve instruction, learning, and technology literacy (NCLB, 2002).
The unique needs of educators at different points in their careers was recognized and a specific induction program to support educators during their first three years was recommended. The No Child Left Behind Act signaled a pivotal change in the educational climate. Increased expectations and accountability for teaching and learning became the norm, and professional development was one of the many areas impacted by this legislation.
2.1.7 Pennsylvania Act 45 of 2007
Following federal NCLB legislation, many states including Pennsylvania expanded their own requirements regarding professional development for teachers and school leaders. While all Pennsylvania educators were made responsible for earning professional learning credit hours through Act 48 of 1999, school administrators became additionally responsible for professional development requirements through subsequent legislation: Pennsylvania Act 45 of 2007. Within Act 45 of 2007 are several requirements applicable to public and private schools in Pennsylvania, including the provision of continuing professional education for school or system leaders specifically focused on the Pennsylvania school leadership standards. The Act established a tiered certification process for principals, vice principals, and assistant principals, and it supplements earlier legislation requiring school leaders to earn professional development credit hours through Act 48 credit hours (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.-b).
Core and corollary standards underpin all of the professional education programs for both new and experienced school leaders in Pennsylvania (Region 2 Intermediate Units, n.d). The Pennsylvania Department of Education organized its professional education offerings for school
leaders through their Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership (PIL) program. The PIL curriculum is based on curriculum from two other recognized associations – the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL) and the Pennsylvania School Leadership Council (PLDC). PIL-approved courses and programs are the only professional development opportunities that satisfy the certification requirements for Pennsylvania school leaders (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.-b).
According to Act 45, individuals earning certification after January 1, 2008, are issued an Administrative I certificate and are required to complete an induction program within five years of appointment to their position. Following three years of satisfactory service and evidence of completion of an approved induction program, administrators are eligible for an Administrative II certificate. The purpose of the induction program is to assist administrators in learning the three core school leadership standards. New principals are required to accumulate a maximum of 36 hours per school year and a total of 108 hours over a three year period. Specific courses have been identified as the basis of the Principal Induction Program. The table below outlines the program expectations.
Table 1. Principal Induction Program
Course One: World Class Schooling – Vision and Goals Unit 1 The Educational Challenge
Unit 2 The Principal as Strategic Thinker
Unit 3 The Elements of Standards-Based Instructional Systems Unit 4 Foundations of Effective Learning
Course Four: Driving for Results
Unit 11 The Principal as Driver of Change Unit 12 Leading for Results
Unit 13 Culminating Simulation
New principals can earn a total of 90 hours for their participation in Course One: World Class Schooling – Vision and Goals. The four units of Course One are focused on visionary and strategic leadership, standards-based teaching and learning, and high quality curriculum and instruction. Additionally, participants may earn 60 hours for the completion of Course Four: Driving for Results. The three units of Course Four focus on goal-setting and data-based decision-making. The courses offer a variety of learning experiences through readings, discussions, simulations, and reflection activities to help new principals learn these relevant leadership concepts.
In addition to the induction courses for new principals, there are standards-based PIL courses designed specifically to meet the needs of experienced principals. Experienced principals are required to earn 180 hours of professional development within each compliance period. A compliance period is typically five years; however, given the changing expectations of principal professional development, the most recent compliance period was extended by two years.
Act 45 of 2007 was significant to Pennsylvania school leaders as it was the first time that specific requirements for principals and central office administrators were outlined. As explained by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, “This legislation will make better use of Act 48 credits by requiring certain school administrators to participate in professional education activities that are focused on practices that have the greatest impact on improving student achievement” (n.d.). Future legislation similarly recognized the professional development needs of teachers and school leaders.
2.1.8 A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act
In 2010, three years after reauthorization of the ESEA was due, President Obama and Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, published A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As outlined in the Blueprint for Reform, there were key differences between this document and former legislation. The Blueprint built on previous reauthorizations by focusing on the need for educators to receive meaningful information about their practice and use the information to provide effective instruction for students (United States Department of Education, 2010). In direct contrast to NCLB, which linked student performance to punitive outcomes for educators, the Blueprint outlined approaches to develop and implement effective systems of teacher and principal evaluation and support, including: the use of student growth as the means to identify highly effective teachers and principals; the implementation of these effective practices to inform professional development opportunities for others; and an emphasis on linking evidence of improvement in student learning to the professional development experience (United States Department of Education, 2010).
The Blueprint for Reform was the first federal guideline of its kind. It established student achievement data as the measure for all reform efforts. It required all professional development to be based on effective practice, and personalized to a school or educator. Funding was provided to support these efforts. Through the Blueprint for Reform, a connection between the research on professional learning and professional development guidelines began to emerge.
2.1.9 Conclusion
During the fifty years between 1965 and 2015, significant educational reform has taken place in the United States. With each federal and state legislative restructuring effort, professional development has been recognized as one of the key areas critical to the improvement of teaching and learning. Recently, professional development requirements specific to school leaders and principals have been further defined and expanded. While much progress has been made, federal and state governments recognize the need for continued education reform in the United States. As stated by Secretary Duncan, during his remarks on the 50th Anniversary of Congress Passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, “… And a new bill needs to do more to support teachers and principals, and ensure that highly skilled educators are teaching where they are needed most. Great teachers and school leaders are critically, critically important to providing true opportunity” (United States Department of Education, n.d.-b).
2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS FOR UNDERSTANDING PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
A conceptual framework is an organizational structure or model that guides a researcher to consider data collection before embarking on a study. A conceptual framework helps to arrange and situate a topic in relation to other key ideas and concepts (Maxwell, 2011). As researchers have attempted to understand topics and processes, they have utilized conceptual frameworks - both general frameworks and frameworks specific to the field of education. In this section,
several conceptual frameworks that have evolved and been used as the basis for interpreting professional development practices will be summarized.
2.2.1 Evolution of Conceptual Frameworks
In 1959, Kirkpatrick contributed one of the earliest conceptual frameworks, which included a four-level framework for evaluating professional learning in business. Later applied to education, Kirkpatrick’s model reflected an increasingly more complex indication of effectiveness (King, 2014). Another similar framework was introduced several years later when Stake (1967) presented a countenance model based on two features of evaluation, description and judgment. Within each feature, or countenance, researchers identify three parts: antecedents, the transactions, and the outcomes. This framework, if applied to a professional development experience could yield valuable results. Researchers would then be able to determine the impact (outcomes) a particular professional development experience (transactions) had on a certain school or teacher (antecedents). It is difficult to determine a causal relationship between a professional development experience and its outcomes, particularly given the mitigating factors surrounding any experience (Guskey, 2002; King, 2014). Comparably, Stufflebeam (2003) presented a model representing Context, Input, Processes, and Product (CIPP), which is a framework is used to evaluate educational programs, personnel, products, organizations, and systems. Guskey’s (2002) model takes a five-tiered approach to program evaluation by beginning with questions at the lowest levels to gather data about participants’ reactions for the purpose of improving the program design and delivery followed by questions at the higher levels to evaluate participants’ acquisition and use of knowledge and skills followed by impact of the professional development. An important consideration regarding Guskey’s (2002) model is the
recognition of the content-specific nature of professional development, which indicates the importance of planning professional development based on intended learning outcomes for students rather than on a generic structure or model of “best practices” of professional development (Guskey, 2002, King 2014).
At approximately the same time, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) outlined an eight step process to assess the impact of professional development. Joellen Killion (2002) and a team of experts in evaluation and professional development determined the ability to evaluate a program is linked directly to the strength and duration of the professional development. In developing a process for evaluation, a theory of change model and a logic model were used as the foundation. A theory of change model identifies both the assumptions of a situation or program, as well as the sequence of actions necessary to reach an intended goal (Killion, 2002). Additionally, a logic model translates the identified actions from the theory of change model into definable outcomes so that they may be analyzed (Killion, 2002; Killion, 2003). Another subsequent hierarchical model was introduced by Bubb and Earley (2010), and includes twelve levels of the evaluation process organized into three groups: preparation, development, and improvement. Inherent in the model is the understanding that lower levels of thought and activity must occur in order to reach the higher levels and establish a cause and effect relationship (Stoll, Harris, & Handscomb, 2012). Distinct from earlier models, Bubb and Early’s level one activities focus on planning for evaluation. This suggests that planning the evaluation of professional development in advance will improve the outcomes desired in subsequent levels, and is consistent with the recommendations of other evaluation experts (Guskey, 2002; Haslam, 2010; King, 2014). Recognizing that opponents to the notion of hierarchical evaluation believe a more context-specific approach will yield more applicable
results for their experience, King (2014) endeavored to create her own evaluation framework to assess the short- and long-term impact of a professional development initiative. King’s Provisional Professional Development Impact Evaluation Framework was built on the foundation of earlier models while establishing several additional components to the frameworks devised by Guskey (2002) and Bubb and Earley (2010). Similar to previous models, the framework was based on four components: the experience, the learning, the degree and quality of change, and pupil outcomes. Additional elements for consideration included systemic factors, staff outcomes, and diffusion – none of which had been incorporated in earlier conceptual models.
Conceptual frameworks provide a structure for researchers to guide the process of understanding professional development. The frameworks described in the previous section are presented in summary form in Table 2.
Table 2. Frameworks for the Evaluation of Professional Development
Framework (Year) Components
Kirkpatrick (1959) Four Levels:
Level One – Reactions to Training
Level Two – Acquisition of Skills/Knowledge Level Three – Application of Learning Level Four – Outcomes from Training
Stake (1967) Two Features:
1. Description
2. Judgment
Three Parts for Each Feature:
1. Antecedent – Current Status and/or Causes
2. Transactions – Changes and/or Actions
3. Outcomes – Effects and/or Results
Evaluate:
1. Congruence = Similarity
2. Contingence = Cause and Effect
Stufflebeam (2003) CIPP Model
Context – Plan, Gather, Situate Area of Study Input – Define Mission, Goals, Plan of Study Process – Evaluate Implementation, Modify Product – Assess Outcomes and Goals
Table #2 (Continued)
Guskey (2002) Level One – Gather Data
Level Two – Assess Learning
Level Three – Investigate Organization Support/Change Level Four – Evaluate Application of Skills/Knowledge Level Five – Assess Impact
Killion (2003) Planning Phase:
1. Assess Evaluability
2. Formulate Evaluation Questions 3. Construct Evaluation Framework Conducting Phase:
4. Collect Data
5. Organize and Analyze Data 6. Interpret data
Reporting Phase:
7. Disseminate Findings 8. Evaluate the Evaluation
Bubb and Earley (2010) Three Levels of Evaluation:
Level 1 - Preparation: Determine Overall Aim, Needs, Baseline, Goal and Plan
Level 2 - Development: Experience Activity, New Learning, and Support to Change
Level 3 - Improvement: Apply Leanring, Monitor Impact of Change on Pupils, Observe Efficacy of Teachers, Monitor Impact of Change on Staff
King (2014) Impact Evaluation Framework (King’s Additions):
1. The Experience ( Evidence Base, Targets, Plan)
2. The Learning (Systemic Factors ie. Support, Initiative Design and Impact, Teacher Agency)
3. Degree and Quality of Change (Staff Outcomes - Personal, Professional, Cultural)
4. Pupil Outcomes (Diffusion – Other Adults and Students)
2.2.2 Desimone Framework
While researchers have contributed several recommendations for conceptual frameworks to evaluate professional development, one idea posits: To effectively measure the wide range of activities as part of professional learning, attention must focus on the critical features of the activity rather than on the type or structure of the activity (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman & Yoon, 2002; Desimone, 2009). Based on her studies, Desimone (2009) contends it is the
“features” of professional development that matter in determining effectiveness as they impact changes in teacher knowledge, skills, and practice. She identifies the five core features of professional learning as content focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation.
In conjunction with the set of five core features, Desimone (2009) recognizes the contribution of earlier researchers who developed frameworks of evaluation, and she suggests the need to establish an operational theory defining the relationship between professional development and teacher and student outcomes. Desimone explains, “In essence, examining the effects of professional development is analogous to measuring the quality of teachers’ learning experiences, the nature of teacher change, and the extent to which such change affects student learning” (2009, p. 188). In a proposed core conceptual framework model, she presents a causal chain linking four components: professional development; increased teacher knowledge, skills, and changes in beliefs; changes in instruction; and, as a result, improved student learning. Her theory purports that influences in initial components, (ie. professional development), cause changes in consequent components. Following this conceptual framework, Desimone refutes earlier statements indicating that we do not have ample evidence to connect professional development with student learning outcomes (Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008).
The conceptual frameworks which have been used to understand and evaluate professional development share several common features. Many of the frameworks identify four common components in varying levels and arrangements. The common components include participation in an experience, new skills or beliefs, application of the new learning in practice, and changed or improved outcomes. Each framework further identifies factors which make it unique. In discerning among the frameworks in order to understand how to apply a
particular conceptual framework to study at professional development, the professional development experience itself warrants consideration. Desimone (2009) identifies five core features of professional development as the basis of her conceptual framework. Thus, those core features are analyzed in the next section.
2.3 A REVIEW OF DESIMONE’S CORE FEATURES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Desimone (2011) defines professional development as, “a complex array of interrelated learning opportunities” (p. 69), and contends that research supports a core set of features necessary in teacher professional development. In the next section, the core features including content, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation will be defined and explained in the context of other literature on the topic.
2.3.1 Core Feature One – Content Focus
The content focus is defined as the subject matter of the professional development, including the knowledge, skills, and teaching practices related to that subject matter (Desimone, 2009; Garet, et al., 2001). While content focus is recognized as a core feature of teacher professional development, it can be applied to professional development for all educators including principals. There are many options for appropriate content for principal professional development, and researchers agree the content of the learning experience must be organized purposefully and carefully in order to be most beneficial to participants (Guskey, 2013). A
professional development curriculum should include a comprehensive set of foundational goals, objectives, activities, and assessments rather than a set of unrelated topics or activities. Common, research-based curriculum includes various topics such as methods of instruction, structure of organizations, process of change, and the concept of leadership (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005).
Defining the process of learning for educators is a set of standards for professional learning. Standards define expected outcomes in terms of what one should know and be able to do. The Professional Standards for Educational Leaders were updated recently and serve as the third iteration of professional standards for educational leaders (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015). The standards outline ten categories for leaders at all stages of their careers to embrace practices which will improve student learning and achievement. Similarly, in their work to improve school leadership, the Wallace Foundation identified five characteristics of effective school leaders, which include creating a vision, building a positive climate, encouraging leadership in others, improving teaching and learning, and managing school systems (Davis, et al., 2005). Practices aligned to these recognized standards and characteristics of effective leadership are suggested as a content focus for principal professional development learning (Mitgang, 2012).
As is recommended in adult learning, to meet individual needs, professional learning content should be personal to each participant based on the participant’s background, experience, and position (Knowles, 1984). Additionally, the use of multiple data sources linking professional development learning with significant participant interests and concerns should supplement basic curriculum (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009). The needs of principals differ at varying stages of their careers; therefore, professional development curriculum must also vary in
order to be appropriate and relevant to novice and experienced principals (Cardno & Youngs, 2013; Keith, 2011). Principals who work at different instructional levels, from elementary to high school, often indicate a desire for differentiated professional development opportunities. Similarly, the demographics of a principal’s school influence the content and structure of the professional development (Keith, 2011).
Principals are expected to manage day-to-day school and district operations while also improving teaching and learning. Professional development content must address both tasks to prepare principals to manage the ongoing balance between the two (Miller, 2013). Operational training may include information on administrative procedures, budget and finance, and contractual requirements which will enable a principal to make effective managerial decisions (Peterson, 2002). Simultaneously, meaningful professional development focuses on factors that will directly influence student learning and achievement (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009; Nicholson, Harris-John, & Schimmel, 2005). When designing a professional development opportunity or program, recommended practice combines the acquisition of academic knowledge and theory with the opportunity for practical experience (Lashway, 2003). Thus, the content of principal professional development often includes a balance of knowledge, skills, and practices. In this manner, the professional development content of principals is similar to recommendations for the content of teacher professional development.
2.3.2 Core Feature Two – Active Learning
Active learning is defined as the opportunity for participants to experience discussion, planning and practice throughout professional development. Activities such as observing and being observed, participating in discussions, receiving feedback, and reviewing professional work
products are suggested as part of active learning for teachers (Desimone, 2009; Garet, et al., 2001). Research supports these same strategies as effective for principals. Professional development is often planned and presented on the premise that a principal’s practice can be transformed based on a transfer of knowledge from an expert to a practitioner (Nicholson, et al., 2005). However, recommended professional development learning design integrates strategies such as “metacognition, application, feedback, ongoing support, and formative assessment that support change in knowledge, skills, and practices" (Lutrick & Szabo, 2012). Learning design that engages educators in ongoing discussion, planning, and practice is recommended to achieve active participation.
Another recommended strategy in a professional development program is through participant reflection. Reflection will provide adult learners with the opportunity to consider new knowledge and experiences and assimilate those with previous understandings to experience growth (Merriam, 2008). Similarly, a reflective inquiry approach can be used to deepen participant understanding. Reflective inquiry encourages principals to “generate knowledge through a process of systematic inquiry” (Fenwick & Pierce, 2002, p. 3). Principals engage in reading professional literature with selections based on their own personal interest and experience. Through journal writing, participants record their perceptions and reflections of their personal strengths and needs. Reflection may occur prior to, throughout, or after participation in a professional development experience or in between professional learning activities. In order for principals to change or improve their practice, they must first fully understand the practice (Barth, 1986; Trotter, 2006). Reflection allows participants to think deeply and develop an understanding of a concept or topic which can later be applied. Reflection supports other active learning strategies such as observations of practice and review of work. Another important
component of a reflective approach is eliciting feedback from colleagues to prompt further investigation and reflection by principals (Fenwick & Pierce, 2002). Active learning positions the participants as central to the learning experiences of the professional development
2.3.3 Core Feature Three – Coherence
As explained by Desimone (2009), coherence is defined as the level of consistency between the professional learning and the participants’ knowledge and beliefs and/or relevant local, state, and federal initiatives. Adult learning research supports the importance of relevant professional learning. Adults are motivated to learn when the learning is personal and relevant to their own needs and interests (Knowles, 1984; Speck, 1996). Relevant learning activities include activities that closely resemble occurrences from everyday work life with processes and products that can be immediately applied in practice. Thus, participants benefit when provided opportunities to examine their own knowledge and beliefs as the basis of content in professional development programs (Evans & Mohr, 2014; Moorman, 1997). Time spent reflecting on daily practice, experiences, and actions will generate authentic issues for consideration. Authentic issues are those the principal experiences as part of typical duties (Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Slabine, 2011). Authentic issues can include topics such as teacher observation and evaluation or data-based decision-making to improve student achievement. Well-planned curriculum, focused on relevant topics and authentic issues such as these, is the foundation on which a quality professional development program must be designed.
Participants benefit from the opportunity to ask questions and share concerns about the issues with which they interact regularly. This input is powerful when it potentially influences professional development program content (Hoffmann & Johnston, 2005). Authentic
professional development, also referred to as job-embedded professional development, enables a participant to learn about topics that are aligned with the needs and goals of a participant’s organization or district. One example demonstrating professional development based on a participant’s organization is through the use of performance evaluations to determine appropriate learning. Performance evaluations indicate a participant’s strengths and needs and are recommended as a key piece of data in determining appropriate professional development content (Miller, 2013). The intent is for the principal to learn specific strategies that can be implemented in a daily position.
School districts often create their own professional development opportunities for principals. One way this occurs is through ongoing supervision and feedback from administrators. Whereas the intent of evaluation is to assess actions and progress toward a goal, the objective of supervision is to promote growth and learning, similar to the intent of professional development (Aseltine, Faryniarz, & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2006). Supervisors are often in a unique position where they can model, explain processes, and provide rationale for decision-making within the context of a district. Principals have an opportunity to observe and interact with the decision-making process in an authentic setting. The use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies increases transparency and provides professional learning for principals (Honig, 2012). Supervision of principals in the Denver Public Schools changed drastically in 2008 when instructional and deputy instructional superintendents were hired to supervise approximately eight to ten school principals each. Principals provided positive feedback about the ongoing interaction rather than just sporadic discussion in times of controversy. Principals in the school system requested more time with their instructional superintendents so the superintendents could conduct regular observations of their practice and serve as a “thought
partner” (Gill, 2013, p.5). Principals reported positive feedback about their access to another professional who could provide professional guidance in an authentic setting.
While there is a range of content for professional development suggested within the research, experts agree those experiences that most closely mimic a principal’s day-to-day problems and dilemmas are most effective (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007). Through simulations of complex, authentic situations, principals combine theoretical and practical knowledge to improve their problem solving skills. Tasks which are job-embedded, authentic, and non-routine are recommended as the type of learning activities that foster future success for professionals (Leithwood, et al., 2004; Salazar, 2007). Non-routine tasks are those tasks which are part of a principal’s duties but which may occur only infrequently. Matching the content and experiences of professional development to principals’ unique interests and needs, experiences, and learning styles will enable them to acquire personal knowledge and grow as professionals (Barth, 1986). Coherence between a participant and professional learning is recommended as an important component in effective professional development
2.3.4 Core Feature Four – Duration
The duration of professional development is defined by the amount and length of time over which the professional learning takes place. Researchers recommend that professional development should extend over a prolonged period of time in order to allow participants an opportunity to implement new learning and reflect on the learning that occurred through the session (Learning Forward, n.d.). Extended time allows participants to connect new knowledge to previous understandings and increases the likelihood that the new knowledge will influence thinking and cause a change in previous practices (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2009; Trotter,
2006). Desimone (2009) defines sufficient duration as lasting a semester and including at least 20 or more hours of contact time. Ongoing professional development ideally includes learning experiences that occur over an extended period of time and include multi-day, day-long, and partial-day work sessions (Peterson, 2002). Typically, professional development has been provided through single day events including in-service sessions, workshops or conferences. These structures do not provide participants the opportunity to reflect or share follow-up information about experiences Short-term opportunities do not promote effective learning as the application of training requires ample time for experiential learning (Peterson, 2002). Principals can change and improve practice when provided with the opportunity to learn and implement strategies in their daily positions (Joyce & Showers, 1983; Leithwood, et al., 2004). Simply providing principals with sporadic or topic-specific learning may build awareness but will not have the desired effect of helping participants develop the skills that may lead to sustainable change in ideas or practice. Further, by extending professional development over a prolonged period of time, a principal is able to participate without the burden of being away from daily tasks for many consecutive days. Principals are more likely to begin and maintain a professional development experience if it does not interfere with their daily responsibilities (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). The schedule and duration of an experience i
